Tweet
Someone sent this to me today:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41977917/H...of-the-Garment
I had no idea about any of this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41977917/H...of-the-Garment
I had no idea about any of this:
Even after the saints moved to Utah territory they did not generally wear the garment outside the temple. It was only worn during the true order of prayer which was regularly done outside the temple by individuals and groups. In fact, it was expected that the saints would attend to this type of prayer within their own homes, and they had altars in their homes for this purpose. After the turn of the 20th century many of the saints ceased to do this in their homes and it was then only done in the upper rooms of wards and stake centers, until about 1970 when the last vestiges of TOP were removed from all church bldgs except the temple.
In 1923, because of changes in clothing styles in America and elsewhere, and since the brethren knew women in the church were rolling up the garment on their arms and legs to do housework, as well as so they could join in with the current dress styles of the day, the First Presidency decided to allow the garment to be changed. The sleeve was shortened to the elbow, the leg just below the knee, buttons instead of strings, collar eliminated, and the crotch closed. Although Joseph F. Smith had previously stated that the garment must never be changed because “the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven” (Messages of the First Prescy, 5:110), the First Presidency later led by President Heber J. Grant issued a letter on June 14, 1923 stating that “no fixed pattern of the temple garment has ever been given” by God, and he ordered all temples to take down the previous instructions of Joseph F. Smith and burn them.
Some time during the next ten years, the sleeves in the garment were again shortened to just below the shoulder and the leg shortened to the knee. To reassure the saints that the brethren had not done anything wrong, Apostle Melvin J. Ballard stated “the fact is that we have not departed one particle from the all important and essential things pertaining to the garments, which are the marks. The length of the sleeve, leg, etc, has been the modification which the Presidency has permitted because there was no specification with reference to these from the beginning” (Ltr, Dec 1, 1933).
In 1936 a temple committee comprised of 4 apostles recommended to the First Presidency “that we authorize the wearing of garments without sleeves [tank tops] which conform in all other respects to the pattern at present agreed upon....we feel sure that such a modification will greatly please many good women through the Church, and we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change” (Ltr to the First Prescy, Apr 22, 1936). It is unknown why this recommendation for a sleeveless style top was never acted upon, but it may have been because it occurred near the death of Heber J. Grant which may have caused their request to be lost in the paperwork shuffle of the new Presidency.
The important point here is that such a modification was approved by the temple committee, which suggests that such modifications do not violate the overall purpose of the garment. In 1964 the First Presidency told members of the church who were in the military that “the marks should be placed on small pieces of cloth and sewed upon the underwear while being worn, then removed when the underwear is sent to the laundry, and re-sewed upon the underwear returned.” (Ltr Aug 31, 1964). Here again, as with Hyrum’s shirt, it appears that the marks were more important, not what held them in place. It could be underwear and a T-shirt rather than a “garment.”
The important point here is that such a modification was approved by the temple committee, which suggests that such modifications do not violate the overall purpose of the garment. In 1964 the First Presidency told members of the church who were in the military that “the marks should be placed on small pieces of cloth and sewed upon the underwear while being worn, then removed when the underwear is sent to the laundry, and re-sewed upon the underwear returned.” (Ltr Aug 31, 1964). Here again, as with Hyrum’s shirt, it appears that the marks were more important, not what held them in place. It could be underwear and a T-shirt rather than a “garment.”
We must note that Joseph’s garment was designed in accordance with the dress standards of his day, which was, that clothing was supposed to cover the body from neck to wrist to ankle just as their clothes did. Some of the original garments were made of wool (as well as unbleached muslin and bound with turkey red) which made them extremely uncomfortable, especially during hot humid days. Consequently, Joseph would occasionally take them off when it was hot. In 1845 W. W. Phelps told the assembled endowed saints that “Joseph told him one day that he [Joseph] had laid aside his garment on account of the hot weather” (JHCK, Dec 21, 1845). Joseph did not believe they had to always be worn, and that hot weather was a good enough reason not to wear them.
Comment